yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no, not to eat.

12

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13

But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” (I Corinthians 5)

Here is the problem the church faced: Whether or not individual Christians, on a personal level, should associate with immoral people. Paul had, in a previous letter which is no longer extant, exhorted the Corinthian brethren to avoid sexually immoral people. Here he explains and expands upon that previous command.

First of all, Christians are not to avoid immoral people “of the world.” This would be impossible, a fact which Paul acknowledges, and further prevent evangelizing the sexually immoral people of the world, which Christ Himself did.

Paul explains that if anyone calls himself a brother, a fellow Christian, and yet continues in immoral conduct, including sexually immoral conduct, that person is to be avoided, even to the point of refusing to set down at a table and eat with him. This is a charge given both to Christians on an individual level, and to the congregation as a whole.

Recently I have discovered that many of my fellow Christians believe that they have an “out” on this command. Some teach that if the adulterous Christian is a member of your own family, then it is okay to carry on as normal. Others hold that this only applies to a local congregation, and that if the fornicating Christian in question is a member of a different congregation, or if the congregation as a whole declines to take action, then they are still free to continue in association and fellowship with this sinner.

This is reminiscent of the Pharisees who taught that if a man swore by the altar in the temple his oath was not binding, but if he swore by the gold in the altar then it was binding. It seems too many would-be Christians are always searching for a loophole which allows them to evade the plain commands God gives His people.

Note that Paul himself was a lawyer, and a very highly trained one at that. Note as well that if you call yourself a Christian then you are obligated to acknowledge that Paul is speaking here through divine inspiration and with apostolic authority. As he warns in verses 7 and 8, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Paul gives a direct command, without wiggle room, and warns that failure to follow his command will lead to contamination of the entire church.

Our churches today are contaminated be sexual immorality because we have not purged out the leaven of the slut. Even if a woman is publicly rebuked, her friends and (physical) family in the church will still rally to her defense. She will not be shunned. She will not be excluded from social events hosted by members of the church. She will not be shamed. And we wonder why the leaven of sexual immorality has gone through the body of Christ.

Christ warns us that anyone who places his earthly family ahead of Christ is not worthy of Him. It is well past time we accept this plain statement, and shun the sluts in the church until they repent. Anything else will cost us our own souls as well as forfeiting any chance to bring sluts to true repentance.

I’m sure some of you will take one look at the title and know what this is going to be about. Far be it from me to disappoint you.
Those of you who follow politics closely are probably familiar with Herman Cain, the erstwhile hopeful for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012. As you may be aware, Mr. Cain was leading the polls for the nomination when his candidacy was upended by allegations of past indiscretions with female employees in the corporation he represented in the late 1990s. I believe I have a bit of insight into those allegations, as well as their relationship to the “female imperative” discussion taking place in some of the better blogs on the internet.
Mr. Cain insisted that he was largely “unaware” of the allegations made against him, and that he was further completely out of the loop on the settlement paid to one of his accusers. Most commentators found these statements to be ludicrous, but upon closer inspection Mr. Cain’s statements have the ring of truth.
In the same time frame in which Mr. Cain was accused of sexual harassment, I was also employed by a mid-sized corporation headquartered out of Atlanta, GA, the same location where Mr. Cain was employed. As part of the training for all employees, I was required to attend “sexual harassment” training sessions. And herein lies the rub, so to speak.
The sessions I attended were primarily videos, slickly produced, and with corporate counsel’s seal of approval. These sessions were tailored around the current court doctrines coming out of state and federal courts in the Atlanta area. And here is what I learned….
1) Women NEVER lie about sexual harassment. The pain of having to disclose sexual harassment is SO GREAT that no woman would EVER lie about it. Hence the accusation of sexual harassment by a woman is in itself prove positive that sexual harassment occurred.
2) Women often do not realize they have been sexually harassed until they receive a negative report on their job performance. Only when she reflects as to why her job performance has been poor does a woman realize she has been a victim of sexual harassment, which prevented her from doing her job properly.
3) The “reasonable man” standard of common law is outdated, and should be replaced with a “reasonable woman” standard in matters of sexual harassment law.
4) A man may sexually harass a woman without any knowledge or intent of doing so. Only the woman can tell is she is being sexually harassed. This does NOT excuse the behavior of the offending male.
Okay, I’m sure you can see where this is going. Every quarter my fellow employees and I would receive our performance reviews. As a rule, the womyn all got positive reviews, for obvious reasons. If, however, a woman somehow received a negative review, we would all wait around to see which poor schlub was going to lose his job for having “sexually harassed” her.
What does this have to do with Mr. Cain? Well, as I said, his corporation was also operating out of Atlanta. At least one of the two accusers was a “serial harassee” who had filed previous complaints and received cash and prizes. Now was this company going to fire a high-ranking African-American executive, or would they just pay the accuser off? After all, the accusation proved the crime……
As for the feminist imperative…. Never once was it even suggested that a woman might sexually harass a man (or another woman). It was specifically stated that womyn NEVER lie about such matters. The common law doctrine of a thousand years was discarded for this new system. And it all served to ensure that womyn were immune from any negative performance reviews and could remove any male employee in their way at any time, with no evidence whatsoever other than an accusation. Call it the new witch hunt, it’s just that the witches are the ones doing the hunting now.

I have taught in multiple public schools, each of which had its own emergency preparedness plans in place. All teachers, staff and administrators are required to know the various plans for different types of emergencies, which include tornadoes, fires, chemical spills, fights, and so forth, all the way up to an “active shooter” on campus, the scenario which occurred yesterday in Newtown, Connecticut. Most of the plans in place at various school districts are practical and useful, with one exception. That one exception is an active shooter.

The reports coming from Newtown have indicated that the elementary school principal, who was herself murdered by the gunman, had recently instituted new security protocols which included locking the doors at 9:30 a.m., requiring visitors to be buzzed in, and having school personnel trained to lock down their classrooms. In her defense, all of this is currently considered “best practices” by the education establishment. And, as we tragically learned yesterday, it is utterly insufficient to handle the emergency at hand in such a situation.

The preliminary news reports are that the doors WERE locked when the shooter arrived at the campus. Unfortunately, locked, glass doors were completely incapable of halting a determined, armed intruder.

Dawn Hochsprung, the school principal, was reportedly killed when she attempted to intercept and overpower the shooter. Her courage and love for her students are beyond words. But the fact is that while her courage was without measure, she was neither trained nor equipped to deal with the crisis that fell on her school. She did everything that the “best authorities” in the education establishment recommend to ensure the safety of her students, and when that failed she gave her own life in a last, desperate, and ultimately futile attempt to protect the children entrusted to her care.

There is a truth which the “best minds” of our public education systems will not admit. They will not admit it for a number of reasons, some political, some psychological. It is, however, a simple truth that has been considered axiomatic for most of human history. That truth is that when an armed attacker comes to kill you, or your children, the only response that matters is to meet the attacker with equal or greater force. Anything else is just play acting at “security.”

Most public school teachers have been taught that firearms are evil. Certainly the use to which they were put yesterday was evil, but the course of wisdom is to attribute evil to the man who wields a weapon, and not the weapon itself. Timothy McVeigh used diesel fuel and fertilizer in Oklahoma City, and accomplished even more carnage. In that case our nation was able to recognize that evil wears a human face. It is a lesson our culture seems unwilling to learn, and which we forget quickly on the rare occasions we are forced to acknowledge the truth.

One thing, and one thing alone, could have prevented the slaughter of the innocent that our nation suffered yesterday. That one thing would have been a trained, armed, committed defender of the children on that campus. Whether it be a school “resource” (police) officer, armed security guard, or teacher with a license to carry a weapon on school grounds, there should have been at least one adult trained and equipped to meet the threat that descended upon Newtown this week. Until we are willing to admit this is a necessity, and quit relying on glass and buzzers to protect our children, then we need to admit we are really just play-acting at security.

Arkansas, a solid “red” state, which just elected a Republican legislature for the first time since Reconstruction, and which also possesses an ostensibly pro-gun Democratic governor, has apparently begun to suspend the 2nd amendment rights of its citizens.

By state law Arkansas is a “shall issue” state for the issuance of licenses to carry a concealed handgun. That is, so long as a state resident passes a required training course, demonstrates competency with a handgun, and passes a background check, the Arkansas State Police are required, by law, to issue that person a concealed handgun license.

Despite this statutory requirement, the Arkansas State Police are at this time declining to issue new licenses, and, in addition, are declining to renew existing licenses, regardless of whether the applicants/current license holders have met all legal requirements. “Lisa” with the Arkansas State Police concealed handgun license office had advised me that this is due to a “glitch” with their “office supplies.” Yes, that is correct, apparently the Arkansas State Police are out of “office supplies” and as a result have decided not to follow through with the legal responsibility they have to provide these permits. “LIsa” also advised me that current license holders whose licenses expire during this time will no longer allowed to carry a handgun, period. Arkansas state law prohibits the open carry of firearms.

“Lisa” also advised me that her office “hopes” to begin issuing licenses again sometime in the first part of 2013, but was unable to provide me with a firm date as to when this would actually occur. Should you wish to verify this information for yourself, please contact the Arkansas State Police concealed handgun license office at (501) 618-8600. I will provide more information as it becomes available.

Arizona recently passed a law barring tax payer funds to Planned Parenthood, an organization entirely dedicated to the abortion mill business. In point of fact Planned Parenthood is so dedicated to providing abortions that, as recently documented by conservative bloggers (including James O’Keefe) they are willing to collude in child prostitution. As if that were not enough, Planned Parenthood was begun (and continues in its mission) to abort as many minorities (especially blacks) as possible. I suppose most people would want to avoid funding an organization that directly supports child prostitution and genocide.

Well, if you don’t like who your funds are going to, to whom do you turn? Under U.S. law you turn to the legislature, of course, for as we all learned in Civics 101 (back when that was still taught) it is the legislative branch that holds the power of the purse. Hence, if you want to change funding priorities, elect legislators who will act accordingly, which is just what the voters of Arizona have done.

Enter U.S. District Judge Neil Vincent Wake. Upon hearing Planned Parenthood’s grievance that the state of Arizona has declined to fund their practice, Judge Wake has taken it upon himself to rule that Arizona MUST fund Planned Parenthood. I suppose this is why Civics 101 is no longer taught: It no longer applies. Funding decisions are now made by the (unelected) judiciary.

A few thoughts on this: 1) This is taxation without representation. Judge Wake is NOT a representative, yet he has decided how tax funds must be allocated (and they cannot be allocated without being collected). 2) Judge Wake has decided that tax dollars are best spent on the support of infanticide, child prostitution and genocide.

MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL: Judge Wake was appointed to the bench by (drum roll please) President George W. Bush. That’s right, it was not Obama, Clinton or Carter who foisted this champion of pedophilia upon us, it was none other than the ostensibly “compassionate conservative” President George W. Bush.

So what do we learn? Your guess is as good as mine, but this is not the free country you and I have always been told it is.

The U.S. per-capita rate for violent crime in 1960 stood at 160.9 (per 100,000). Then the rate suddenly exploded, reaching a high in the early 1990s of 758.1, an increase of just over 470%. Today the rate stands at approximately 403.6, something of an improvement over the early 90s, but still far in excess of what was the norm fifty years ago. Looking at these rates one has to ask what could account for such an outpouring of violence? How did we become a Clockwork Orange society, and is it possible to reverse the trend?

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: Col. 3.21 but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

In 1969, then Governor of California Ronald Reagan signed into law the nation’s first “no fault” divorce legislation. The rest of the states quickly followed suit, and “no-fault” divorce became the norm across the country, with a resultant uptick in the divorce rate from 10% to 50%. Along with this uptick in divorce came the exclusion of fathers from their children’s lives as “family court” (as if) judges awarded custody to mothers in over 90% of divorces, without regard to who filed the divorce (after all, it IS “no fault”).

The Biblical admonition from Paul hearkens back to Moses, and Moses hearkens back further himself. Paul said that honoring one’s parents is the “first commandment”, yet it is NOT the first commandment of the Ten Commandments. How then is this command the “first commandment”?

The command to honor one’s parents was the first of the Ten that dealt specifically with man’s relationship to his fellow man. Preceding commandments, such as the admonitions against blasphemy and idolatry, dealt with man’s relationship to God. The very first law that a child learns is the law of his parents. If he ignores that law and disregards that authority then he will learn obedience to no other law. If a child holds his parents in contempt then the church, school, and civil government need expect no respect for their authority.

Since the passage of no fault divorce we have raised a generation of children whose fathers have been forcibly excluded from their lives. It is the responsibility of the father, first and foremost, to teach children to avoid the path of wrath. Yet we live in a time where men believe we can raise peaceable children in the absence of fathers. The result of that experiment is now being seen in the bloodshed that stains our nation.

Finally, consider that children are told to honor their parents so that it “may be well” for them, and that they “may live long on the Earth.” Our national rate of bastardy now stands at over 50% for births to women under age 30, an all-time high since records have been kept. Couple this with the fact that our divorce rate stands at around 50%, and what we have created is a society where children who have a father in their home have become a minority; and a minority which is rapidly shrinking. The outcome of fatherless children will inevitably be a generation of wrath. In removal of fathers from the home our leaders have sown the whirlwind, and now are praying for a crop failure.

If you are a socon, tradcon, paleocon, or maybe even a neocon you are most likely familiar with the idea of “natural law.” At one point in time most United States citizens were familiar with this concept, as it is enshrined within the Declaration of Independence when the founders gave natural law as the justification for rebellion against British rule.

The founders adopted the idea of natural law from John Locke (if you haven’t read his two treatises then you really should put that on the “to do” list), while Lock borrowed the concept from the Apostle Paul. In Romans chapter 1 Paul addresses, at length, the spiritual decline and fall of the gentile world. He begins by showing how human pride led the gentiles to reject the knowledge of God, which resulted in their departure from the natural order. Paul emphasizes that homosexuality is against nature, and further describes the crimes of the gentiles as being a result of being “without natural affection.”

Each year the women of the United States abort over one million unborn children…. Is Ms. Rusaw’s crime worse than the women who do this? If so, why? Each woman who chooses to kill her unborn baby must harden her heart to the results of her choice. How many times must a woman make a conscious decision to kill her own child before her psyche changes to something previously unrecognizable?

Leave abortion out of it however, and take a look around your community at the various “day care” centers. How many of them advertise that they are for children “six weeks and up”? A little research revealed that in my home state infants as young as six weeks may be placed in day care centers all day. The state requires only one caregiver per six infants. This means that various mothers drop their six week old infants off with a stranger who is also looking after five other infants, none of whom are her own. Is this natural affection? Is this in the “best interest of the child”?

The women of western civilization like to boast “you’ve come a long way, baby” and “we can have it all.” The “all” they have seems to be a job, which from all appearances the majority of them hate, crushing student loan/credit card/car note/house note debt, failing marriages and abandoned children, all of it pursued by women who pridefully believed that they should be the same as men in every area. Just as Paul predicted, these women have lost the affection they are naturally endowed with, and as a result are capable of any crime. We may, as a culture, choose to ignore natural law, but if we violate its rules we will still pay the price. Man never truly “breaks” the law of God, he merely breaks himself in rebellion against it.